click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
in afghanistan >> ah, yes. and that is a very important part of "the haunting legacy" because chapter 3 with carter and really right up through with reagan and bush one, vietnam and afghanistan have been sort of intellectually married and why do i say that? because zbigniew brzezinski whom you know very well and has undoubtedly many on this program many times, brzezinski when he wasnational security advisor to prident carter, we were very fortunate. we got ahold of hisecret wall streeting memos to carter about what he thought carter ought to do in foreign policy. zbigniew brzezinski actually had in his mind that if we could suck the russians in more deeply into afghanistan we could create what he called heir vietnam." and in his mind, that kind of a loss, soviet troops in humiliation, having to leave afghanistan to go back to the soviet union loaded up with drugs, terrible shape, the equipment absolutely destroyed, they went back and in spig's mind, this could lead to the disintegration of the communist power in the soviet union because the red ar is the core the strength, the inner str
is not on the table. in afghanistan, forces have handed over security to the afghan police and the army. the handover ceremony took place with the british officers have been since 2006. this is one area gradually placed under government control. our defense correspondent was at the ceremony and filed this report. >> a moment of national pride. afghans taking responsibility for their own security. this ceremony showing that they are up for the job. but the british soldiers still have concerns, about corruption within the afghan police. >> some allegations of corruption, what we're trying to do is eradicate this. we are trying to push the locals away. >> even if afghanistan routes out the corruption, -- this is another province that was just handed over. there has been little fighting here, over the past 10 years. >> bombs and bullets are not the biggest killers, this is diarrhea and malnutrition. >> after the withdrawal of the nato forces -- >> the pressure is on the government to win the trust of its own people. >> there'll be lots of questions and concerns. our hope is to change that institution. >>
the thdrawal in afghanistan to u.s. relationships with china. the los angeles angels of anaheim has written apart from the firs family there may b no one who spends more time than donilon. as the u.s. faces economic challenges at home and rapid changes abroad with an arab spring, the white houshas made its mission to restore american prestige and influence and power around the world. i'm pleased t have tom donilon at this table for the first time welcome. >> thank you, charlie, great to be here. good to see you. >> rose: there's so much to talk about in limited time. we could spend 30 minutes just talking about your biography and your friendship with warren christopher, the clinton administration, all of that. you combine policy and politics in earlier careers and now it's the focus of the united states and its relationship with the world. how do you view the mission? because you said you wanted to restore america's credibility, its influence, its respect, and its power. >> well, i think that's exactly right, and that is our core goal at this point. we came into office in 2009 after a diffi
imagine getting there in a variety of ways. you count savings from withdrawal of troops, from afghanistan and from iraq. you have some other defense cuts can, you have a whole bunch of discretionary cuts. you do some little things on mandatory programs that are not social security or medicare. and so then the deal gets done and some ofhese big questions on medicare and taxes get saved for the 2012 campaign. on the other hand, whenou read quotes which you occasionally read, from congressional staffers, republican staff are saying, you know, ybe a showdown in whiche don't get this deal isn't the worst thing. that does make you wonder how many people within congress think that actually no deal would be better than a deal. and my colleague david brooks argues that that would be very bad for the republicans politically. i'm not so sure about that. there is only one president and there's only one ecomy and i think there's a chance that chaos and no deal actually hurts the white house and to the extent that the republicans agree with that, then we could be in for a really dicey couple of months.
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4